Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 10
|
|
- Stewart Hodges
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION KIMBERLY POWERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 5:05-cv-117 ) v. ) Honorable Robert Holmes Bell ) THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL, ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant. ) ) This matter is before the court on plaintiff s motion for reconsideration of the court s order of September 8, 2006 (docket # 94), which substantially denied plaintiff s motion for discovery sanctions and other relief. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that plaintiff s motion is meritless. The motion (docket # 100) will therefore be denied without the necessity of a response by defendant or a hearing. See W.D. MICH. LCIVR 7.4(b). Background This is a diversity action brought by a former student of the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. Plaintiff sues under the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, MICH. COMP. LAWS , alleging that the law school failed to grant her reasonable accommodations necessitated by problems with her vision. Part of the factual underpinning of plaintiff s case is the allegation that the computer systems maintained by the law school to assist persons with visual disabilities repeatedly malfunctioned, especially during plaintiff s final examinations.
2 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 2 of 10 On August 18, 2006, plaintiff s counsel, Joseph Curi, filed a discovery motion denominated Plaintiff s Motion to Compel Defendant Law School to Provide Work Orders in Compliance with the May 5, 2006 Discovery Order, to Allow for the Re-Taking of Depositions, to Extend Discovery, and For Sanctions. (docket # 84). The gravamen of plaintiff s motion was that the law school had violated the court s discovery order entered on May 5, 2006, by failing to provide Plaintiff with the work orders outlined in the May 5, 2006 discovery order. (Motion, 2). The court s discovery order required, among other things, that defendant produce all work orders to the IT Department involving three specified rooms in defendant s Lansing campus for the period July 30, 2002 through December 31, (Order, docket # 73, C). Plaintiff s attached brief set forth a number of arguments concerning defendant s alleged failure to produce the work orders required by the May 5 discovery order. Among the relief requested was an order compelling Defendant law school to produce, at the law school s expense, all of the work orders outlined in the May 5, 2006 Discovery Order. (Brief, docket # 84, at 13). At no point in her motion or brief did plaintiff seek an order compelling the law school to allow plaintiff s expert an opportunity to do his own inspection and investigation of defendant s database to extract allegedly relevant information. In response to plaintiff s motion, defendant presented the court with the affidavits of both Greg Colegrove (Director of IT Operations of Cooley Law School) and Sally Backofen (the law school s Director of Information Technology Services). (docket # 89, Exs. 2, 3). These affidavits directly rebutted plaintiff s allegations concerning defendant s alleged noncompliance with the court s discovery order and demonstrated that, to a significant extent, plaintiff and her counsel misunderstood the law school s system for assisting students and faculty with computer problems and for generating work orders. -2-
3 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 3 of 10 The court conducted a hearing on plaintiff s motion to compel on September 8, The hearing consumed one hour and twenty-five minutes. Plaintiff was personally present. The focus of the hearing was whether defendant had complied with the court s previous discovery order, which required a new search for work orders covering three specific rooms in the law school s Lansing campus from July 30, 2002, through December 31, The defense affidavits disclosed that the law school had implemented a new computerized work order system at or around July 30, 2002, the beginning of the time period covered by the discovery order. The old system was called Track It, while the new system was denominated HelpStar. According to the Colegrove affidavit (docket # 89, Ex. 2, 4), the new HelpStar system was implemented on or about July 30, 2002, but the old Track It system continued in operation for a few months thereafter on a parallel basis. (Id.). The affidavit reported that the ability to electronically retrieve documents from the Track It system was lost when that system was discontinued. (Id.). However, the law school had previously produced in paper form several work orders that existed on the Track It system that fell into the relevant time period and were responsive to the court s order. Consequently, although it is no longer possible to search electronically for responsive documents dated within the two- or three-month overlap period, defendant was able to produce several responsive documents from this period that existed in paper form. During the hearing, therefore, it became apparent from an examination of the affidavits and other factual material before the court that (1) the law school had complied with the court s order to perform a new computer search for relevant work orders in the HelpStar system; (2) the search of the HelpStar system was conducted in a thorough and good-faith manner and all responsive documents were produced; (3) a computer search of the obsolete Track It system covering -3-
4 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 4 of 10 the two- or three-month overlap period was not reasonably practicable; (4) defendant had, however, produced responsive documents in paper form from the Track It system; and (5) the number of work orders produced in paper form from the Track It system was consistent with the number of responsive work orders for other months. Plaintiff s counsel then shifted gears, orally asking for permission to have plaintiff s expert conduct a forensic search of the law school s computer in an effort to extract relevant information from the Track It system. As noted above, plaintiff s motion did not ask for this relief. Rather than rejecting plaintiff s oral request out of hand, the court asked plaintiff s counsel a number of questions directed to the factors made relevant by Rule 26(b)(2). One of the court s questions concerned the number of work orders that defendant had produced in discovery that pertained to the Kurzweil machine, one of the adaptive devices at issue in this case. Plaintiff s counsel informed the court that he had 50 to 75 work orders regarding the Kurzweil system. This information was relevant to at least two of the Rule 26(b)(2) inquiries: whether the party seeking discovery has had an ample opportunity to obtain the information sought and whether the burden or expense of continued discovery outweighs its likely benefit. After hearing from both parties, the court determined that the balance of factors under Rule 26(b)(2) did not favor the intrusive relief that plaintiff s counsel injected into the discovery hearing by oral motion. The court found that, given the number of paper work orders produced by defendant for the short overlap period, it was not likely that significant other work orders would be found and that discovery of the few additional work orders that might theoretically lurk in the Track It system was not worth the delay, expense, and intrusion into the law school s computer -4-
5 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 5 of 10 system. On this basis, the court denied plaintiff s unpled, oral request for a forensic inspection of the law school s computers. Now before the court is plaintiff s motion for reconsideration. In the motion, plaintiff s counsel asserts that he misinformed the court concerning the number of work orders involving the Kurzweil machine. Plaintiff now claims that the correct number of work orders is 31, and that some of them do not deal with substantive problems. On this basis, plaintiff argues that the court s order was based on a palpable defect by which the court was misled and seeks an order allowing plaintiff s expert to inspect defendant s computer. Discussion I. Compliance With the Mandatory Requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a) and W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.1(d) The court notes at the outset the perfunctory and insouciant effort by plaintiff s counsel to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 37(a) and the Local Rules of this court. Rule 37(a)(2)(B) requires that any discovery motion include certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make the discovery in an effort to resolve the matter without court action. The Local Rules of this court specifically require that in the case of discovery motions, counsel shall confer in person or by telephone in a good faith effort to resolve each specific discovery dispute. W.D. MICH. LCIVR 7.1(d). Plaintiff s motion indicates that on September 18, 2006, plaintiff s counsel sent defense counsel a fax concerning the proposed motion. At 2:34 p.m. on the same day, plaintiff s counsel called the office of defense counsel and was informed that defense counsel was not in the office. Plaintiff left a voic and then filed his motion without speaking to defense counsel. (docket # 100, 3). According to the -5-
6 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 6 of 10 court s CM/ECF system, the motion was filed at 4:23 p.m. on the same day. Plaintiff s counsel therefore allowed defense counsel less than one business day in which to react to the issue, clearly an unreasonable time. Plaintiff s counsel has displayed impatience and not a good-faith effort to resolve each specific discovery dispute, as required by this court s rules. This failure, in and of itself, is grounds for denial of the motion and imposition of sanctions. II. Lack of Merit reconsideration: The Local Rules of this court establish the following standards for motions for Grounds - Generally, and without restricting the discretion of the Court, motions for reconsideration which merely present the same issues ruled upon by the Court shall not be granted. The movant shall not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the Court and the parties have been misled, but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction thereof. W.D. MICH. LCIVR 7.4(a). Plaintiff s counsel points to his own act of misinforming the court as the source of the palpable defect leading the court to an erroneous decision. Just as plaintiff s original motion was based in substantial part on the misunderstanding of the law school s computer system, plaintiff s motion for reconsideration is based on a misunderstanding of the law and of the basis for this court s previous ruling. Although plaintiff s counsel has filed two lengthy discovery motions, neither motion has ever requested forensic examination of defendant s computers nor presented any authority in support of such relief. The request came first orally during a motion hearing and then in the pending motion for reconsideration. Again, counsel makes only a factual argument and presents no legal -6-
7 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 7 of 10 authority in support of such relief. It therefore falls upon the court once more to analyze the issue, to make clear why plaintiff has not shown herself entitled to the relief requested. The federal courts have assumed that the provisions of Rule 34(a) concerning inspection, copying, and testing of tangible objects are sufficient to authorize a court to order inspection of the adversary s computer. See, e.g., Simon Property Group, LP v. MySimon, Inc., F.R.D. 639, (S.D. Ind. 2000). The question presented in the present case is whether the court should exercise its authority to do so in the circumstances presented. In most cases, the computer itself is not evidence. It is merely the instrument for creating evidence (like a typewriter) or the means of storing it (like a file cabinet). Increasingly, however, litigants have sought access to the opponent s computer or other electronic devices to search for evidence, especially for deleted s. The federal courts have generally resisted such incursions. In re Ford Motor Co., 345 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2003), is instructive. In that case, the Eleventh Circuit granted mandamus to prevent implementation of a district court order allowing plaintiffs to inspect certain databases on Ford s computers. Plaintiffs asserted that Ford had not been forthright in providing documents in response to discovery requests, and the district court granted them the right to perform their own examination of Ford s computer. The Eleventh Circuit found that this was an abuse of discretion. The court remarked that Rule 34(a) requires the responding party to search his records to produce the required, relevant data. Rule 34(a) does not give the 1 The advisory committee notes to the pending amendments to Rule 34(a), however, express doubt on this subject. The court rule is not clear that such testing or sampling is authorized; the amendment expressly permits it. Proposed Amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, advisory committee s note (Aug. 2004). This court will nevertheless proceed on the assumption that, in an appropriate case, the court already has such authority under Rule 34. The amendments to Rule 34, slated to take effect on December 1, 2006, clarify the court s power in this regard. -7-
8 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 8 of 10 requesting party the right to conduct the actual search. 345 F.3d at The court remarked that at times, perhaps due to improper conduct on the part of the responding party, the requesting party itself may need to do its own examination, but noted that the district court had made no findings that Ford had failed to comply properly with discovery requests. Id. Consequently, while not categorically forbidding searches of the opponent s computer for withheld evidence, the appellate court found that the record did not justify such unusual relief. While some kind of direct access might be permissible in certain cases, this case has not been shown to be one of those cases. Id.; accord, Bethea v. Comcast, 218 F.R.D. 328 (D.D.C. 2003). The advisory committee notes to the proposed amendments to Rule 34, scheduled to take effect later this year, take a similar approach, suggesting that direct inspection of an opponent s computer should be the exception and not the rule: Inspection or testing of certain types of electronically stored information or of a responding party s electronic information system may raise issues of confidentiality or privacy. The addition of testing and sampling to Rule 34(a) with regard to documents and electronically stored information is not meant to create a routine right of direct access to a party s electronic information system, although such access might be justified in some circumstances. Courts should guard against undue intrusiveness resulting from inspecting or testing such systems. Proposed amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 advisory committee s note (emphasis added). This court concludes that the policy espoused by the Eleventh Circuit in the Ford Motor Co. case is consistent with the Rules of Civil Procedure, both in their present form and under the proposed amendments. The discovery process is designed to be extrajudicial, and relies upon the responding party to search his records to produce the requested data. In the absence of a strong showing that the responding party has somehow defaulted in this obligation, the court should not resort to extreme, expensive, or extraordinary means to guarantee compliance. Forensic inspection -8-
9 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 9 of 10 of computer hard drives is an expensive process, and adds to the burden of litigation for both parties, as an examination of a hard drive by an expert automatically triggers the retention of an expert by the responding party for the same purpose. Furthermore, examination of a hard drive inevitably results in the production of massive amounts of irrelevant, and perhaps privileged, information. Courts faced with this inevitable prospect often erect complicated protocols to screen out material that should not be part of discovery. See, e.g., Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1054 (S.D. Cal. 1999) (appointing court s expert to conduct examination). Again, this adds to the expense and complexity of the case. This court is therefore loathe to sanction intrusive examination of an opponent s computer as a matter of course, or on the mere suspicion that the opponent may be withholding discoverable information. Such conduct is always a possibility in any case, but the courts have not allowed the requesting party to intrude upon the premises of the responding party just to address the bare possibility of discovery misconduct. See, e.g., Bethea, 218 F.R.D. at The standard by which the court determines whether to allow a forensic inspection of the adversary s computer is provided by Rule 26(b)(2). That rule not only permits but requires the court to curtail discovery efforts in a number of circumstances: if the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or is attainable from some other source that is more convenient or less burdensome; when the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or when the balance of burden and expense outweighs the information s likely benefit, taking into account a number of factors, such as the needs of the case and the importance of the discovery to the issues at stake in the litigation. Because plaintiff had failed to brief her request for a forensic inspection of the law school s computer (or even mention it in her motion), plaintiff did not address any of these crucial issues. The court was -9-
10 Case 5:05-cv RHB Document 108 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 10 of 10 therefore put in a position of interrogating plaintiff s counsel to determine whether the balance of factors under Rule 26(b)(2) favored the relief that counsel requested orally. In this context, the court inquired about the results of plaintiff s discovery to date, and was given apparently bad information by plaintiff s counsel. In the motion for reconsideration, counsel assumes that an accurate answer would have materially affected the court s decision. The assumption is incorrect. The difference between 50 to 70 work orders (as represented by plaintiff s counsel at the hearing) and 31 work orders (as counsel now contends) is immaterial. The point is that defendant has made a thorough search of its records and has produced numerous documents showing problems with the adaptive computer equipment. As the court noted on the record, and now reiterates, it is not likely that an expensive and intrusive examination of defendant s computer system will disclose significantly more work orders for the interval period, especially in light of the fact that defendant has produced several paper work orders generated during those months. The balance of factors under Rule 26(b)(2), and not the gross number of work orders produced, led to the court s decision on September 8, In summary, the court concludes that the drafters of Local Rule 7.4 could not possibly have intended to allow a party to move for reconsideration on the basis of the party s own misrepresentation to the court, whether merely negligent or founded on worse culpability. In any event, even taking into consideration the number of work orders now disclosed by plaintiff, the court concludes that its decision would have been no different had plaintiff s counsel made an accurate representation to the court. Plaintiff s motion for reconsideration will therefore be denied. Dated: September 21, 2006 /s/ Joseph G. Scoville United States Magistrate Judge -10-
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ]
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure [ Proposed Amendment ] (a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter. (1) Initial Disclosures. Except to the extent
More informationCase 1:16-cv SEB-MJD Document 58 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 529
Case 1:16-cv-00877-SEB-MJD Document 58 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 529 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION BROCK CRABTREE, RICK MYERS, ANDREW TOWN,
More informationCase3:14-mc JD Document1 Filed10/30/14 Page1 of 13
Case:-mc-00-JD Document Filed/0/ Page of DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. ANTHONY J WEIBELL, State Bar No. 0 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 0 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 0-0 Telephone:
More informationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
1 of 7 10/10/2005 11:14 AM Federal Rules of Civil Procedure collection home tell me more donate search V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY > Rule 26. Prev Next Notes Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery;
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-DMR Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 LORD ABBETT MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND, INC., v. JOANN ASAMI, Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s). / No. C--0
More informationRecent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016
Recent Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure The Mississippi Bar Convention Summer School for Lawyers 2016 History The impetus to change these Rules was the May 2010 Conference on Civil Litigation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 0 1 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney KENDALL J. NEWMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 01 I Street, Suite -0 Sacramento, CA 1 Telephone: ( -1 GREGORY G. KATSAS Acting Assistant Attorney General
More informationcase 1:12-cv JVB-RBC document 222 filed 02/25/13 page 1 of 6
case 1:12-cv-00296-JVB-RBC document 222 filed 02/25/13 page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION ADVANCED TACTICAL ORDNANCE SYSTEMS, LLC,
More informationAttorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters
Attorney s BriefCase Beyond the Basics Depositions in Family Law Matters Code of Civil Procedure 1985.8 Subpoena seeking electronically stored information (a)(1) A subpoena in a civil proceeding may require
More informationCase 4:16-cv RGE-SBJ Document 93 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 4:16-cv-00650-RGE-SBJ Document 93 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION DEBORAH INNIS, on behalf of the Telligen, Inc. Employee
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Plaintiff, Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DJW/bh SAMUEL K. LIPARI, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS v. U.S. BANCORP, N.A., et al., Plaintiff, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION No. 07-2146-CM-DJW MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter
More informationThe Federal Employee Advocate
The Federal Employee Advocate Vol. 10, No. 2 August 20, 2010 EEOC ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE S HANDBOOK This issue of the Federal Employee Advocate provides our readers the handbook used by Administrative Judges
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2011 H 1 HOUSE BILL 380. Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 0 H 1 HOUSE BILL 0 Short Title: Amend RCP/Electronically Stored Information. (Public) Sponsors: Representatives Glazier, T. Moore, Ross, and Jordan (Primary Sponsors).
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
BRAY & GILLESPIE MANAGEMENT LLC, BRAY & GILLESPIE, DELAWARE I, L.P., BRAY & GILLESPIE X, LLC, et al. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION -vs- Case No. 6:07-cv-222-Orl-35KRS
More informationUNIFORM RULES RELATING TO DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
FOR APPROVAL UNIFORM RULES RELATING TO DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-FIFTEENTH YEAR PASADENA,
More information4 of 7 DOCUMENTS GO TO CALIFORNIA CODES ARCHIVE DIRECTORY. Cal Code Civ Proc (2013)
Page 1 4 of 7 DOCUMENTS DEERING'S CALIFORNIA CODES ANNOTATED Copyright (c) 2013 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved. *** This document is current through
More informationI. INTRODUCTION. Plaintiff, AAIpharma, Inc., (hereinafter AAIpharma ), brought suit against defendants,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK < AAIPHARMA INC., : : Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM : OPINION & ORDER - against - : : 02 Civ. 9628 (BSJ) (RLE) KREMERS URBAN DEVELOPMENT CO., et al.,
More informationCase 2:17-cv RSM Document 27 Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I.
Case :-cv-0-rsm Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 0 ROBERT SILCOX, v. Plaintiff, AN/PF ACQUISITIONS CORP., d/b/a AUTONATION FORD BELLEVUE, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-000-raj Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Aubin et al v. Columbia Casualty Company et al Doc. 140 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA WILLIAM J. AUBIN, ET AL. VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-290-BAJ-EWD COLUMBIA CASUALTY COMPANY,
More informationCase 1:04-cv RHB Document 195 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:04-cv-00026-RHB Document 195 Filed 09/14/2005 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STEELCASE, INC., a Michigan corporation, v. Plaintiff,
More informationHonorable Todd M. Shaughnessy Erik A. Christiansen Katherine Venti
Best & Worst Discovery Practices Honorable Todd M. Shaughnessy Erik A. Christiansen Katherine Venti A. Utah Standards of Professionalism and Civility: Preamble: "A lawyer s conduct should be characterized
More information2:13-cv PDB-MKM Doc # 33 Filed 10/06/14 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 305 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
2:13-cv-11415-PDB-MKM Doc # 33 Filed 10/06/14 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 305 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 2:13-cv-11415-PDB-MKM v.
More informationEXHIBIT A-1 GUIDELINES OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY AND CIVILITY FOR HAWAI I LAWYERS
EXHIBIT A-1 GUIDELINES OF PROFESSIONAL COURTESY AND CIVILITY FOR HAWAI I LAWYERS (SCRU-17-0000651) Appended by Order of August 27, 2004 The Judiciary State of Hawai i EXHIBIT A-1 GUIDELINES OF PROFESSIONAL
More informationCrafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It
Crafting the Winning Argument in Spoliation Cases: And the Dog Ate Our Documents Isn t It Janelle L. Davis Thompson & Knight LLP 1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 969-1677 Janelle.Davis@tklaw.com
More informationCase: 4:15-cv NCC Doc. #: 61 Filed: 04/21/16 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 238
Case: 4:15-cv-01096-NCC Doc. #: 61 Filed: 04/21/16 Page: 1 of 10 PageID #: 238 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION ALECIA RHONE, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 4:15-cv-01096-NCC
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-MOORE/SIMONTON ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION
National Alliance for Accessability, Inc. et al v. Calder Race Course, Inc. Doc. 49 NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR ACCESSABILITY and DENISE PAYNE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant/s.
Case :-cv-0-jak -JEM Document #:0 Filed 0// Page of Page ID UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JONATHAN BIRDT, Plaintiff/s, v. CHARLIE BECK, et al., Defendant/s. Case No. LA CV-0
More informationDISCOVERY & E-DISCOVERY
DISCOVERY & E-DISCOVERY The Supreme Court of Hawai i seeks public comment regarding proposals to amend Rules 26, 30, 33, 34, 37, and 45 of the Hawai i Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposals clarifies
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-SCOLA/ROSENBAUM
ALL MOVING SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, v. Plaintiff, STONINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas corporation, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 11-61003-CIV-SCOLA/ROSENBAUM
More informationCase 1:07-cv RHB Document 8 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-00648-RHB Document 8 Filed 10/02/2007 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION FRANK GLOVER, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationDISCOVERY- LOCAL RULES JUSTICE COURTS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
DISCOVERY- LOCAL RULES JUSTICE COURTS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS EFFECTIVE: JULY 1, 2015 TARRANT COUNTY JUSTICE COURTS - LOCAL RULES FOR DISCOVERY OBJECTIVES In accordance with law, the Justice Courts conduct
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT AND PORT JEFFERSON STEAMBOAT COMPANY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 3:03 CV 599 (CFD) - against - BRIDGEPORT PORT AUTHORITY, July 13, 2010
More informationAlternatives to Written Discovery
Alternatives to Written Discovery Russell Taber Riley Warnock & Jacobson PLC Overview Witness Interviews Internet Research Public Records Search Private Investigator Rule 31 Depositions Upon Written Questions
More informationTEXAS DISCOVERY. Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY
TEXAS DISCOVERY Brock C. Akers CHAPTER 1 LAW 2. 1999 REVISIONS TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE GOVERNING DISCOVERY 3. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLANS 4. FORMS OF DISCOVERY A. Discovery Provided for by the Texas
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 ASUS COMPUTER INT L, v. Plaintiff, MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Defendant. SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL;
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
AO 88B (Rev. 06/09 Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Eastern District of of Michigan AETNA
More informationCase 2:10-cv RLH -GWF Document 127 Filed 06/29/11 Page 1 of 10
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -GWF Document Filed 0// Page of 0 SHAWN A. MANGANO, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 0 shawn@manganolaw.com SHAWN A. MANGANO, LTD. 0 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 0 Las Vegas, Nevada -0 Tel: (0) 0-0
More informationediscovery Demystified
ediscovery Demystified Presented by: Robin E. Stewart Of Counsel Kansas City Robin.Stewart@KutakRock.com (816) 960-0090 Why Kutak Rock s ediscovery Practice Exists Every case, regardless of size, has an
More informationCase No. 2:13-cv-1157 OPINION AND ORDER
Duncan v. Husted Doc. 39 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Richard Duncan, : Plaintiff, : v. : Secretary of State Jon A. Husted, Case No. 2:13-cv-1157
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Mass Litigation May 29-31, 2008 Charleston, South Carolina. Materials on Electronic Discovery
359 ALI-ABA Course of Study Mass Litigation May 29-31, 2008 Charleston, South Carolina Materials on Electronic Discovery By Shira A. Scheindlin Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse New York, New York
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Omega Hospital, L.L.C. v. Community Insurance Company Doc. 121 OMEGA HOSPITAL, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 14-2264 COMMUNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
More information2:12-cv NGE-MJH Doc # 99 Filed 12/03/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 4401 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cv-12276-NGE-MJH Doc # 99 Filed 12/03/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 4401 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOSEPH ROBERT MARCHESE d/b/a DIGITAL SECURITY SYSTEMS LLC,
More informationCase 3:12-cv L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769
Case 3:12-cv-00853-L Document 201 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 12 PageID 4769 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MANUFACTURERS COLLECTION COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 1:09-cv BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5. Plaintiff, : :
Case 109-cv-02672-BMC Document 19 Filed 12/31/09 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- X CHRIS VAGENOS, Plaintiff,
More informationDated: Louise Lawyer Attorney for Plaintiff
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because
More information231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
231 F.R.D. 343 United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. 1 Definition No. 5 provides that identify when used in regard to a communication includes providing the substance of the communication.
More informationCase 2:10-cv TFM-CRE Document 99 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:10-cv-00131-TFM-CRE Document 99 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. JASON SOBEK, Plaintiff,
More informationAcademy of Court- Appointed Masters. Section 2. Appointment Orders
Academy of Court- Appointed Masters Appointing Special Masters and Other Judicial Adjuncts A Handbook for Judges and Lawyers January 2013 Section 2. Appointment Orders The appointment order is the fundamental
More informationCOMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION DIVISION PROCEDURES FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
COMPLEX BUSINESS LITIGATION DIVISION PROCEDURES FOR THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA SECTION 1 PHILOSOPHY, SCOPE AND GOALS 1.1 - Citation to Procedure 1.2
More informationCase 2:05-cv CNC Document 119 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. v. Case No.
Case 2:05-cv-00467-CNC Document 119 Filed 07/13/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN INDIA BREWING, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No. 05-C-0467 MILLER BREWING CO., Defendant.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-503-DJH-CHL
United States of America v. Hargrove et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-503-DJH-CHL
More informationFiling an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12
ADVISORY LITIGATION PRIVATE EQUITY CONVERGENT Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12 Michael Stegawski michael@cla-law.com 800.750.9861 x101 This memorandum is provided for
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-rsl Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 0 MEDTRICA SOLUTIONS LTD., Plaintiff, v. CYGNUS MEDICAL LLC, a Connecticut limited liability
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R. This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND R U L E S O R D E R This Court s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure having submitted its One Hundred Fifty-Second Report to the Court, recommending
More informationCase5:12-cv LHK Document501 Filed05/09/13 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case:-cv-000-LHK Document0 Filed0/0/ Page of 0 0 APPLE INC., a California corporation v. Plaintiff, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
More informationM.R IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. Effective January 1, 2013, Illinois Rule of Evidence 502 is adopted, as follows.
M.R. 24138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Order entered November 28, 2012. Effective January 1, 2013, Illinois Rule of Evidence 502 is adopted, as follows. ILLINOIS RULES OF EVIDENCE Article
More informationR in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers
R-17-0010 in a Nutshell by Mark Meltzer and John W. Rogers R-17-0010 was a rule petition filed by the Supreme Court s Committee on Civil Justice Reform in January 2017. The Supreme Court s Order in R-17-0010,
More informationCase 8:16-cv CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:16-cv-02899-CEH-AAS Document 254 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID 6051 PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA
More informationCase 2:05-cv TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cv-00195-TJW Document 211 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DIGITAL CHOICE OF TEXAS, LLC V. CIVIL NO. 2:05-CV-195(TJW)
More informationCase: 2:08-cv GLF-NMK Doc #: 120 Filed: 08/02/10 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 2274
Case: 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Doc #: 120 Filed: 08/02/10 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 2274 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 2:08-cv-575
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY ) COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13CV46 ) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & ) RICE, LLP, ) ) Defendant.
More informationInquiry From Discovery Subcommittee On Civil Rules Regarding Electronic Discovery
April 28, 2003 Peter McCabe Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Federal Judiciary Building Washington, D.C. 20544 Re: Inquiry From Discovery Subcommittee On Civil Rules Regarding Electronic
More informationThe first question presented in this dental malpractice case is whether. defendant, who chose not to respond to a summons and complaint because he
Opinion Chief Justice: Clifford W. Taylor Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Justices: Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE KENNETH L. KELLEY, as the son, next of ) kin, and heir at law of JIMMY L. KELLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 3:13-cv-096 ) (REEVES/GUYTON)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
0 0 Collette C. Leland, WSBA No. 0 WINSTON & CASHATT, LAWYERS, a Professional Service Corporation 0 W. Riverside, Ste. 00 Spokane, WA 0 Telephone: (0) - Attorneys for Maureen C. VanderMay and The VanderMay
More informationCase 1:05-cv RHB Document 50 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00384-RHB Document 50 Filed 10/06/2005 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION QUIKTRAK, INC., v. Plaintiff, DELBERT HOFFMAN, et al.,
More informationSubstantial new amendments to the Federal
The 2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: What Changed and How the Changes Might Affect Your Practice by Rachel A. Hedley, Giles M. Schanen, Jr. and Jennifer Jokerst 1 ARTICLE Substantial
More informationAUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY VERSUS CHRISTOPHER AH- NER ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO SECTION "J" (2)
Page 1 Posted with the permission of LexisNexis AUTO CLUB FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY VERSUS CHRISTOPHER AH- NER ET AL. CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-5723 SECTION "J" (2) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
More information2018 Tenth Annual AIPLA Trademark Boot Camp. AIPLA Quarles & Brady LLP USPTO
2018 Tenth Annual AIPLA Trademark Boot Camp AIPLA Quarles & Brady LLP USPTO Board Practice Tips & Pitfalls Jonathan Hudis Quarles & Brady LLP (Moderator) George C. Pologeorgis Administrative Trademark
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA PEBBLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) AGENCY, et al., ) ) No. 3:14-cv-0171-HRH Defendants. ) ) O
More informationCase 1:16-cv JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:16-cv-02113-JDB Document 56 Filed 01/16/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AARP, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Case No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ORDER I. BACKGROUND
Case: 1:10-cv-00568 Document #: 31 Filed: 03/07/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:276 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION CHICAGO TRIBUNE COMPANY ) ) Plaintiff, )
More informationOctober Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 25, 2013 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationTGCI LA. FRCP 12/1/15 Changes Key ESI Ones. December Robert D. Brownstone, Esq.
TGCI LA December 2015 FRCP 12/1/15 Changes Key ESI Ones 2 0 1 5 2015 Robert D. Brownstone, Esq. 1 1 Rule 1. Scope and Purpose These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the
More informationINDIVIDUAL RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR CIVIL CASES. Lorna G. Schofield United States District Judge
INDIVIDUAL RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR CIVIL CASES Lorna G. Schofield United States District Judge Mailing Address: United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New
More informationObservations on The Sedona Principles
Observations on The Sedona Principles John L. Carroll Dean, Cumberland School of Law, Samford Univerity, Birmingham AL Kenneth J. Withers Research Associate, Federal Judicial Center, Washington DC The
More informationCase 1:13-cv WYD-MEH Document 41 Filed 08/13/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:13-cv-02707-WYD-MEH Document 41 Filed 08/13/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 Civil Action No. 13-cv-02707-WYD-MEH MALIBU MEDIA, LLC, v. Plaintiff, JOHN BUTLER, Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationPEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure
PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. tms@manningllp.com MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP Five Questions Five
More informationSpoliation Scrutiny: Disparate Standards For Distinct Mediums
Spoliation Scrutiny: Disparate Standards For Distinct Mediums By Robin Shah (December 21, 2017, 5:07 PM EST) On Dec. 1, 2015, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) was amended with the intent of providing
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION. THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION THOMAS C. and PAMELA McINTOSH PLAINTIFFS V. NO. 1:06cv1080-LTS-RHW STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, FORENSIC
More informationCase 2:11-cv JTM-JCW Document 330 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:11-cv-00926-JTM-JCW Document 330 Filed 09/04/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LUTHER SCOTT, JR. and the LOUISIANA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v., Defendant(s). Case No. PRETRIAL AND CRIMINAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The defendant(s), appeared for
More informationDECISION ON MOTION. Plaintiff s Requests to Produce 1
Cochran v. Northeastern Vermont Regional, No. 66-3-13 Cacv (Manley, J., April 1, 2015) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy
More informationPennsylvania Code Rules Rule and
Pennsylvania Code Rules Rule 4003.3 and 4003.5 Reference Sources: http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/231/chapter4000/s4003.3.html http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/231/chapter4000/s4003.5.html Rule 4003.3.
More informationDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility. Board Rules
District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility Board Rules Adopted June 23, 1983 Effective July 1, 1983 This edition represents a complete revision of the Board Rules. All previous
More informationCase 1:14-cv ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:14-cv-00403-ESH Document 39 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Sai, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Case No: 14-0403 (ESH) ) TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ) ADMINISTRATION,
More informationThe 2010 Amendments to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Brief Reminder
ABA Section of Litigation 2012 Section Annual Conference April 18 20, 2012: Deposition Practice in Complex Cases: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly The to the Expert Discovery Provisions of Rule 26 of the
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jm-jlb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil No. cv JM (JLB) ORDER REGARDING
More informationLing v Kemper Independence Co NY Slip Op 30231(U) February 10, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Eileen A.
Ling v Kemper Independence Co. 2016 NY Slip Op 30231(U) February 10, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 650092/2014 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationCOMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES
COMPREHENSIVE JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES Effective October 1, 2010 JAMS COMPREHENSIVE ARBITRATION RULES & PROCEDURES JAMS provides arbitration and mediation services from Resolution
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. v. : Case No. 2:08-cv-31 ORDER
Arnold v. City of Columbus Doc. 70 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Yolanda Arnold, : Plaintiff, : v. : Case No. 2:08-cv-31 City of Columbus, : JUDGE
More informationCase 2:02-cv TS-DN Document 441 Filed 12/16/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:02-cv-00950-TS-DN Document 441 Filed 12/16/2009 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPEDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and THOMAS SHUTT,
More informationCase 1:17-cv KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Case 1:17-cv-02542-KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK... x KATE DOYLE, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 13-CV-1168-EFM-TJJ MEMORANDUM AND
More informationCase 1:14-cv KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:14-cv-20945-KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9 AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE, INC., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationStanding Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals
Standing Practice Order Pursuant to 20.1 of Act 2002-142 Establishing Rules Governing Practice and Procedure in Medical Assistance Provider Appeals TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I--PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Subpart
More informationRULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CONTESTED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS
RULES OF TENNESSEE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION CHAPTER 1220-01-02 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - CONTESTED CASES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1220-01-02-.01 Definitions 1220-01-02-.12 Pre-Hearing Conferences 1220-01-02-.02
More informationCase: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883
Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., and ROBERT HART, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN
More informationCase 1:07-mc GBL-BRP Document 21 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 1 of 17
Case 1:07-mc-00034-GBL-BRP Document 21 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION IN RE SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO AOL, LLC
More information